Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Bond did not love tracy


73 replies to this topic

#31 right idea, wrong pussy

right idea, wrong pussy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 200 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 12:18 AM


Second, this motivation issue comes to the fore with the Bond/Tracy relationship. One moment Bond tells Tracy to put her clothes on and leave, and the next moment he tells her that she's, "the most extraordinary girl". :confused: The montage seems like an act of desparation. Since these two characters have no reason to be in love, and since the writers and the director can't explain to us why they should fall in love, we simply get to see them falling in love, and we simply have to accept that what they're saying to each other during the bits of that montage somehow allow them to get to know each other and care for each other, etc. It didn't convince me, certainly not in the way that CR convinced me that Bond had fallen for Vesper.


You must try explain how the Bond-Vesper relationship works for you, then.

Meeting No. 1: she takes the piss out of Bond by telling him he's an arrogant, emotionless thug.
Scene No. 2: Bond explains he doesn't fancy Vesper anyway 'cos he's emotionally stunted and only [censored] married women.
Scene No. 3: Vesper humiliates Bond by buying him a Brioni evening suit, explaining it is superior to his own. Clearly, this is nothing more than a play for superiority in the partnership as it is plain Bond has taste in sophisticated clothing already as HE'S BEEN CLAD HEAD TO FOOT IN BRIONI SINCE HE AND VESPER MET!!!!
Scene No. 4: For no apparent reason, Bond decides to go listen in on Le Chiffre, taking Vesper with him, which then allows him to give her comfort in the shower in a scene that surpasses any of the cheese of the All The Time In The World montage.
Various Gambling Scenes: Bond plays cards, wins, does Vesper suddenly get all school-girl giddy as a consequence???? Bond begs her for extra cash; she turns him down, belittles him. She restarts his heart; again, is this the reason all the crap above suddenly turns to love???
Lastly: Bond almost gets his balls chopped off for Vesper. Is this the metaphor for all the above suddenly being discounted and Bond growing from a stunted action-thug into a man of deep caring and emotion, and Vesper from "Daddy Wanted a Little Boy" man-hater into soft, soppy love interest?

No, Vesper never convinces she is one to be loved. She remains what she is. A bitch.


Good post, DS! I see where you are coming from. In fact, when I watch CR, I tend to feel very angry at Vesper right around the time LeChiffre cleans Bond out, knowing what I know about her. I usually think that myself, "that [censored]ing bitch!". I'm not sure how much I buy Vesper falling for Bond, but I do buy Bond falling for Vesper. Let me explain my reasons:

Unlike most other Bond films (OHMSS included), CR gives Bond a character arc. He starts off seeming very cold and driven. He's callous about killing, only has flings with married women, and shows no emotion when Solange is tortured to death because of his actions. He claims that none of this affects him in any way, but one of the themes of the film is that Bond wears a mask (or 'armor', as Vesper puts it) to present to the world. I get the sense that he secretly views himself as damaged goods, morally and spiritually. Craig's Bond is in no danger of deflowering anyone's innocent teenage daughter. He deliberately chooses a grubby line of work, and he only carries on adulterous relationships, which by their nature are fairly grubby.

So, I wouldn't believe Bond falling in love with Vesper if she WASN'T a bit of a bitch. I can't imagine Craig's Bond in CR showing any interest at all in Domino Derval, Melina Havelock, Stacey Sutton, Kara Milovy or the like. They're to close to being the kind of women you take home to meet mother. Vesper is herself damaged goods, and Bond senses this in their first meeting. Vesper is a lot like Bond. She also has armor hiding turbulent emotions, and she's even an orphan like Bond. I think at first Bond is intrigued by her simply in the, "I'd like to find out more about this woman" sense.

As for the scene where Bond listens in on LeChiffre, I agree that Bond's motivations are unclear and that the scene primarily exists to move the plot. However, I don't share your cynical view about it because Vesper doesn't magically fall in love with Bond just because Bond saves her from a situation he himself got her into. The filmmakers could have gone that route - it would have been very easy, but very unbelievable. I don't think the scene has much to do with Vesper. It has to do with Bond. Bond wants to listen in on LeChiffre for whatever reason (perhaps to hear any strategy LeChiffre has planned at the card table). He coldly brings Vesper along as cover ("see, I'm just out strolling and snogging with my girlfriend!"). After the fight scene is over and he gets back to the room, he realizes how upset she is, and he feels morally responsible for her. He's not in love with her, but she's not just a disposable commodity anymore. When Bond rashly goes after LeChiffre with a dinner knife, he tells Mathis to, "get the girl out". Bond is now becoming the Bond we know from many other movies, who tells the villain to "let the girl go, and we'll double whatever they're paying you".

So, combine that state of affairs with Vesper saving Bond's life and losing her reserve in his presence ("if all that was left of you was your smile . . ."), and I can understand Bond falling in love with Vesper. The two of them have been through a lot together (or so he thinks), and she's warming to him and seems to genuinely care about him (which can't but help him view himself as more than just a licensed killer - "maybe there is some good left in me" he might think to himself).

As for Vesper, I'm not sure if she loves Bond, but she does seem to care for him. She certainly does come across as bitchy, but that's understandable given her position. She's in love with a French-Algerian whose life she thinks is being threatened by Quantum. Quantum tells her even before she meets Bond that she will have to betray him, so she's hardly going to want to cozy up to him right away (she be more of a bitch if she did pretend to like him at first). She can't give Bond more money, even if she'd personally like to. She's torn between her boyfriend and Quantum on the one hand, and her increasing feeling for Bond on the other. The fact that she saves Bond from being killed by Quantum speaks volumes to me. She'll get them their money, but she won't let them kill Bond if she can help it.

By contrast, I can't buy Bond falling for Tracy at all in OHMSS. Perhaps he does feel altruistic enough to help her, but as he tells Draco, "what she needs is a psychiatrist". And Tracy acts even more irritatingly than Vesper, and without Vesper's secret motivations to account for her behavior. Bond saves her life and her reputation at the casino, and so she thanks him by threatening him with his gun. Bond shows up at her father's birthday party and shows an interest in her, so she deliberately sabotages the proceedings and runs off and cries. And then Bond, having gotten what he was really after, chases after her for no discernable reason. Perhaps he feels a gentlemanly duty towards her at that moment, but he's clearly not in love with her. As soon as the montage ends he's in Gumbold's office picking up Blofeld's trail and smirking at Playboy magazines. Then he's off to Piz Gloria to seduce the girls at the clinic. Partly this is no doubt to find out more about them and thus Blofeld's plans for them, but Bond takes a real joy in how his work is "piling up". Tracy is totally forgotten until she reappears as a deux ex machina at the skating rink and helps Bond escape. And for this very generous but very simple service of saving Bond's skin (something Honey Ryder, Tatiana Romanova, Domino Derval and Aki had all done before), Bond not only develops feeling for Tracy but proposes marriage to her. :confused:

#32 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 12 July 2011 - 12:53 AM

Um... pussy? I think David was joking. :|

#33 right idea, wrong pussy

right idea, wrong pussy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 200 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:24 AM

Um... pussy? I think David was joking. :|


You must let me in on the joke then, because he certainly appeared to be making serious points that deserved to be taken seriously.

#34 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 12 July 2011 - 02:21 AM

Um... pussy?

You wouldn't know.

#35 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:31 AM

You wouldn't know.

That's the user's name, Righty; now, unless you've got something useful to contribute on the topic at hand, sit down 'n' shut up.

Seriously; you butt in here to unleash a veiled personal assault? You're pathetic.

#36 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:53 AM

You wouldn't know.

That's the user's name, Righty; now, unless you've got something useful to contribute on the topic at hand, sit down 'n' shut up.

Seriously; you butt in here to unleash a veiled personal assault?

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Unprovoked assaults are pretty annoying, eh?

#37 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:54 AM


You wouldn't know.

That's the user's name, Righty; now, unless you've got something useful to contribute on the topic at hand, sit down 'n' shut up.

Seriously; you butt in here to unleash a veiled personal assault?

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Unprovoked assaults are pretty annoying, eh?

I get angry at politics, not the people who believe in them. I only speak up when I feel I have to; I don't go bouncing around the forums like a handy-dandy killjoy all the live-long day... I leave that to you.

Now, back to the topic on hand, shall we?

#38 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:55 AM

Seriously; you butt in here to unleash a veiled personal assault? You're pathetic.

*Ahem*

http://debrief.comma...and-so-can-you/

You two deserve each other... just wish it didn't have to be in a thread about a genuine liberal genius, but that's what happens when the joke flies so far over your heads that you think Colbert means what he says.

Just... reprehensible, you two.



#39 Righty007

Righty007

    Discharged.

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13051 posts
  • Location:Station CLE - Cleveland

Posted 12 July 2011 - 04:00 AM


You wouldn't know.

That's the user's name, Righty; now, unless you've got something useful to contribute on the topic at hand, sit down 'n' shut up.

Seriously; you butt in here to unleash a veiled personal assault?

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Unprovoked assaults are pretty annoying, eh?

I get angry at politics, not the people who believe in them. I only speak up when I feel I have to; I don't go bouncing around the forums like a handy-dandy killjoy all the live-long day... I leave that to you.

Now, back to the topic on hand, shall we?

In the following exchange, the first person to bring "politics" into the situation was YOU. You clueless, twit. :rolleyes:

Also recently read Greg Gutfeld's "Bible of Unspeakable Truths". You ever read it or watch his show?

Haven't read the book but I love Red Eye! It was one of my favorite shows while I was at uni.

Red Eye? You mean, the Red Eye that defamed Canadian troops in 2009?

You two deserve each other... just wish it didn't have to be in a thread about a genuine liberal genius, but that's what happens when the joke flies so far over your heads that you think Colbert means what he says.

Just... reprehensible, you two.



#40 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 04:11 AM

Sorry to interrupt guys...

I tend to be with "right idea, wrong pussy" about Vesper.
About David Schoffield's summary of the Vesper/Bond relationship,

Lastly: Bond almost gets his balls chopped off for Vesper. Is this the metaphor for all the above suddenly being discounted and Bond growing from a stunted action-thug into a man of deep caring and emotion, and Vesper from "Daddy Wanted a Little Boy" man-hater into soft, soppy love interest?


Well, honestly, I don't think he goes through that for Vesper, but rather for Queen and Country, doesn't he?


No, Vesper never convinces she is one to be loved. She remains what she is. A bitch.


I don't really agree, but anyway, haven't you noticed how men like bitches? And if Bond didn't he'd have married Moneypenny about 50 years ago :)

#41 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:22 PM

Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Their courtship lasted 3 months. this is evident by 2 scenes;

1) When Bond is "brought in" by Marcons Draco, the calendar Bond throws the knife into is on the month of September.

2) Blofeld's ultimatum to the UN is characterized as his "Yuletide Greeting".

Bond was subsiquentially married/widowed shortly therafter.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 12 July 2011 - 01:24 PM.


#42 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:27 PM

The relationship between Bond and Vesper is totally unconvincing to my mind, she arrives late in the story, spends little personal time with Bond - either on screen or off - ultimately making the announcement of their feeling abrupt and arbitrary. This being the Twilight generation they need thier emo excuses intrusive and obvious but what the dialogue told us was quite anachronous with what we are shown. Moreover we have to consider 'where Bond is'in his life, he has just committed to the 00s he's ambitious and committed enough to make killing for queen and country his trade, he cheerfully discards one beauty on his mission quest, it really seems odd that he's suddenly falling into the 'love at first sight' indulgence that he would have to here.

OHMSS on the other hand introduces Tracy from moment one, stirs the chivalrousy part of a seasoned and rounded Bond - no rookie here but a man pursuing a seemingly endless mission that even his superior is feeling is slipping away, this Bond is at a place where settling down might be an ambition. Tracy meets him as an equal in the bed, another first in the series. He's driven back to her side and actually has time to relax and be himself alongside her, no life threatening event to sully the emotions this is real in a way he hasn't been shown to indulge before, and when we pick her up the third time her dedication to him is as an angel of mercy...

OHMSS is structured to develop the relationship in a credible way, Casino Royal announces a relationship against all credible evidence. Tracy remains Bonds one true love and Rigg was the perfect person to play her imo.

Edited by Lachesis, 12 July 2011 - 01:31 PM.


#43 right idea, wrong pussy

right idea, wrong pussy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 200 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:06 PM

The relationship between Bond and Vesper is totally unconvincing to my mind, she arrives late in the story, spends little personal time with Bond - either on screen or off - ultimately making the announcement of their feeling abrupt and arbitrary. This being the Twilight generation they need thier emo excuses intrusive and obvious but what the dialogue told us was quite anachronous with what we are shown. Moreover we have to consider 'where Bond is'in his life, he has just committed to the 00s he's ambitious and committed enough to make killing for queen and country his trade, he cheerfully discards one beauty on his mission quest, it really seems odd that he's suddenly falling into the 'love at first sight' indulgence that he would have to here.

OHMSS on the other hand introduces Tracy from moment one, stirs the chivalrousy part of a seasoned and rounded Bond - no rookie here but a man pursuing a seemingly endless mission that even his superior is feeling is slipping away, this Bond is at a place where settling down might be an ambition. Tracy meets him as an equal in the bed, another first in the series. He's driven back to her side and actually has time to relax and be himself alongside her, no life threatening event to sully the emotions this is real in a way he hasn't been shown to indulge before, and when we pick her up the third time her dedication to him is as an angel of mercy...

OHMSS is structured to develop the relationship in a credible way, Casino Royal announces a relationship against all credible evidence. Tracy remains Bonds one true love and Rigg was the perfect person to play her imo.


I see your point of view here, but I personally feel quite the opposite about these two movies. Given that we're talking about love, which is a pretty powerful emotion, I think (logical person though I am) that you have to feel convinced that two characters are in love even more than you accept the rational groundwork for their relationship (especially if they're not committing to get married, which is a much bigger step than just "being in love"). A screenwriter can write an emotionally convincing relationship in numerous ways. For example, Lawrence Kasdan has me convinced that Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood are in love in Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is in spite of the fact that, much like Bond and Vesper, they spend a gret deal of time being antagonistic towards one another throughout the movie. There is a "spark" between them, and after the events they go through in the film, they feel a fairly strong level of attraction and love for one another. But even then they aren't at the "getting married" stage yet (as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull reveals, they take 20 years to get to that point).

An important thing to remember here is that Bond is not marrying Vesper in CR or proposing to settle down with her. In fact, he explicitly wants to "float round the world" with her. His love for her at this point is at the level where he wants to let her into his formerly guarded psyche and share his ramblings where he hopes to "find himself" or figure out what he should be doing with his life (and given the torture he's just gone through, it would be understandable for his former ambitions in MI6 to have evaporated).

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that Bond and Vesper's relationship would have worked out long term. Had they become engaged, I imagine that like Indy and Marion, one of them would have broken it off. And yet I still find the "spark" between them much more present than between Tracy and Bond (this could be a measure of Lazenby's wooden acting though - Bond's love dialogue in CR could have been equally unconvincing in the hands of a less skilled actor than Craig). And OHMSS has a much bigger hurdle to overcome, because Bond not only declares his love for her, but asks her to marry him, all in one stroke!

I certainly can see why a veteran agent (though Lazenby hardly looks a veteran compared to Connery) would be willing to consider settling down - but what about Bond's current mission makes him ready to suddenly give it all up? The movie seems to indicate that he wants to settle down with Tracy, and since "an agent must think only of himself", he can't romance Tracy and still be an agent, so he gives up being an agent. This means he must REALLY be into Tracy - since she is his sole reason for quitting the service (he hasn't been tortured with a carpet beater or anything).

And so I come right back to the screenwriting and direction in OHMSS. CR at least tries (and I think, tries hard) to make you feel Bond's relationship with Vesper on an emotional level. Certainly, anyone is free to feel that CR fails at what it's attempting. However, it works harder at it than OHMSS does. CR tells us that Bond loves Vesper because she is the one person he knows who doesn't have a 'tell' - he's fascinated by her mystery. Now, laugh at that if you like, but tell me what reason OHMSS gives for Bond loving Tracy? There is none, at least not that I can find. We're simply shown a montage and have to assume that they're in love (I'm reminded of the famous Plinkett reviews of the Star Wars prequels. In particular, Plinkett savages Attack of the Clones for using just the same approach OHMSS does to conveying romance - "Anakin and Padme are eating a picnic in a field. They must be in love! They're riding on a space gondola. They must be in love!") :D .

The passage of time issue you refer to in OHMSS doesn't help a whole lot, frankly. Bond coomes to Draco's birthday party in mid-September or so, and then resumes his relationship with Tracy. The problem is, he doesn't spend the next three months with her - he's only got a few weeks of leave as it is (thanks to Moneypenney). And he spends part of that leave at Gumbold's office. After that he cuts the leave short to see M - M says to him, "I thought you were on leave". This means that Bond spent less than the 2-3 weeks leave he had (I can't remember how much it was) with Tracy. In fact, given that he's already started research at the College of Arms by the time he shows up at M's house, I'd say he probably only spent a week or so with Tracy before getting back to what he really cared about - Operation Bedlam. So all of October and November - and much of December - are still a bit of a puzzle. Is Bond hanging around with Tracy a lot? Perhaps, but we're never shown that. You can assume he's with her, but given the lascivious glee he shows at Piz Gloria, I could just as easily assume that he's boffing the secretaries at the College of Arms during that time period.

#44 lazenbyland

lazenbyland

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 199 posts

Posted 13 July 2011 - 11:50 AM

If we are talking the book Bond, then as Casino Royale was Fleming's first novel, it didn't really have as much depth or layers as the later books so the relationship with Vesper isn't really explored as much and I think she is only mentioned next in passing in Goldfinger.

The more significant reference is in OHMSS when Bond visits Vesper's pauper's grave when it states he visits Royale every year indicating that Bond's life was about to come full circle.

The 2006 film of Casino Royale did explore the realtionship between Vesper and Bond more than the book I felt.

#45 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 13 July 2011 - 04:00 PM

Now, laugh at that if you like, but tell me what reason OHMSS gives for Bond loving Tracy?


It's because of Tracey's seemingly untameable, independent spirit, coupled with her self-destructiveness. It's these contradictions that make her so captivating. Plus - she's Mrs. Emma Peel. Who the hell wouldn't fall in her love that?

The reasons are never spelled out for the audience, as in CR. It doesn't need some trite crap like "I can't read you. I think that's why I love you." It's left for the viewer to work out. Back in those days, most mainstream scribes or filmmakers had some grasp of nuance and subtext. Today, everything has to be obvious.

I'll also add - Lazenby and Rigg's performances in the barn proposal scene, along with the screenwriting, direction, lighting and music, is 1000 X more convincing, real and naturalistic, than any of the contrived, lovey dovey, chocolate box romance in CASINO ROYALE.

Even beyond the shoddy writing, Craig and Green's lack of any real chemistry stops me from believing they're in love. It just comes off as false, in a similar way to ATONEMENT or A BEAUTIFUL MIND.

#46 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 13 July 2011 - 04:46 PM

I see your point of view here, but I personally feel quite the opposite about these two movies.


Thats fair enough...but I feel you are selling the older film far short in terms of the real efforts it makes and further are advocating a fairytale perception of 'love' which imo is completely at odds with the world and character of Bond.

And so I come right back to the screenwriting and direction in OHMSS. CR at least tries (and I think, tries hard) to make you feel Bond's relationship with Vesper on an emotional level. Certainly, anyone is free to feel that CR fails at what it's attempting. However, it works harder at it than OHMSS does. CR tells us that Bond loves Vesper because she is the one person he knows who doesn't have a 'tell' - he's fascinated by her mystery.


While we might disagree as to the effectiveness of each movie in conveying the romance, in real and factual terms OHMSS has the screentime, the associated real time, the diversity of film mechnisms and the story focus entirely on its side..there is simply no comparison to the abrupt and brief associations shown in CR. Indeed the only validation of Vesper and Bonds relationship is that naive 'love at first sight' conciet - a childishly stupid and cliched concpet in the world of Bond. OHMSS isn't a one shot one element deal, its not an enfatuation, nor is it either the 'shining Knight' or Florence Nightinggale symdrom'...its the real deal developed against expectation or really volition. Something credible and convicning earned accross the whole film. You do seem more agreeable to the performances of CR (indeed that appears your sole real point), but those perfomances sit on absolutely nothing of any substance.


Now, laugh at that if you like, but tell me what reason OHMSS gives for Bond loving Tracy?


It's because of Tracey's seemingly untameable, independent spirit, coupled with her self-destructiveness. It's these contradictions that make her so captivating. Plus - she's Mrs. Emma Peel. Who the hell wouldn't fall in her love that?

The reasons are never spelled out for the audience, as in CR. It doesn't need some trite crap like "I can't read you. I think that's why I love you." It's left for the viewer to work out. Back in those days, most mainstream scribes or filmmakers had some grasp of nuance and subtext. Today, everything has to be obvious.

I'll also add - Lazenby and Rigg's performances in the barn proposal scene, along with the screenwriting, direction, lighting and music, is 1000 X more convincing, real and naturalistic, than any of the contrived, lovey dovey, chocolate box romance in CASINO ROYALE.

Even beyond the shoddy writing, Craig and Green's lack of any real chemistry stops me from believing they're in love.


Absolutely, I could not agree more. Bond's aside; Tracy (and Diana Rigg) was and is one of a kind, Vesper (and Eva Green) just isn't.

#47 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:54 AM

Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.

But to me, Bond's realtionship was Tracy was founded on Bond getting information from Draco. Maybe they actually did grow to love one another, but it was founded on something less than wholesome, which I find to be reinforced by the way Bond goes from bedding a dozen women (with the same sleazy pick-up line) to proposing to Tracy in the space of 24 hours, so I had a lot of trouble swallowing that. But it wasn't as bad as the way Blofeld started to move on Tracy for absolutely no reason other than that she was nearby. I think both are failings of the script more than anything else, though.

#48 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 21 August 2011 - 12:20 PM

But it wasn't as bad as the way Blofeld started to move on Tracy for absolutely no reason other than that she was nearby.

"absolutely no reason"...?
How about her looks?

#49 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 21 August 2011 - 12:30 PM

It's just the way the whole thing is written. Blofeld doesn't know about Tracy, doesn't know who she is, up until that point in the film. And then suddenly, he's making a move on her. It's almost as if he's somehow found out that Bond and Tracy are engaged, and has taken a page out of Beverly Hills 90210 and decided to seduce Tracy to hurt Bond.

#50 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 12:53 PM

It's just the way the whole thing is written. Blofeld doesn't know about Tracy, doesn't know who she is, up until that point in the film. And then suddenly, he's making a move on her. It's almost as if he's somehow found out that Bond and Tracy are engaged, and has taken a page out of Beverly Hills 90210 and decided to seduce Tracy to hurt Bond.


No, mate.

He's a lunatic international villain holding the world to ransom. He's got a very attractive woman as his captive. Perfectly reasonable he'd be after a shag.

As for Beverley Hills 90210 dialogue, I refer you to the teenage nonsense spouted by Bond and Vesper in their train meeting. Absolutely ludicrous to expect this would come from two worldly 30 somethings.

#51 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:06 PM

He's a lunatic international villain holding the world to ransom.

"Lunatic" implies insanity. Blofeld is less insane and more genuis.

He's got a very attractive woman as his captive.

And he just forgot about the two dozen Angels of Death in, what, a fit of testosterone?

#52 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:10 PM


He's a lunatic international villain holding the world to ransom.

"Lunatic" implies insanity. Blofeld is less insane and more genuis.

He's got a very attractive woman as his captive.

And he just forgot about the two dozen Angels of Death in, what, a fit of testosterone?


So Blofeld's a genius for holding the world to ransom? OK.

Maybe he didn't forget about the Angels of Death; hypnosis can be used for all sorts of things, you know. However, the fact is that on screen he's seen trying to get into Tracy's knickers.

#53 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:23 PM

So Blofeld's a genius for holding the world to ransom? OK.

No, he's a genuis because of the way he plans to do it - using brainwashed women to unleash viral weapons that will decimate crops and livestock. And this was in 1969. For the next thirty years, most films that revolved around holding the world to ransom hinged on stolen nuclear warheads, usually from Russia. That's where the brilliance of the plot lies: in Blofeld's ingenuity.

However, the fact is that on screen he's seen trying to get into Tracy's knickers.

And he's trying to do it for absolutely no good reason other than that she's there.

#54 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 01:26 PM


However, the fact is that on screen he's seen trying to get into Tracy's knickers.

And he's trying to do it for absolutely no good reason other than that she's there.


No, as I've said before, its because he's a nutcase. Many men with a moral code wouldn't want to force themselves on Tracy. Blofeld has no moral code at all. Tracy is his for the taking.

With the evidence as presented, the 'Blofeld on Tracy' stuff works fine for me.

#55 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 21 August 2011 - 02:07 PM


So Blofeld's a genius for holding the world to ransom? OK.

No, he's a genuis because of the way he plans to do it - using brainwashed women to unleash viral weapons that will decimate crops and livestock. And this was in 1969. For the next thirty years, most films that revolved around holding the world to ransom hinged on stolen nuclear warheads, usually from Russia. That's where the brilliance of the plot lies: in Blofeld's ingenuity.

However, the fact is that on screen he's seen trying to get into Tracy's knickers.

And he's trying to do it for absolutely no good reason other than that she's there.


It would surely not occur to him if she wasn't there. But as she is I can somewhat see why Blofeld would like to combine business and pleasure, perfectly reasonable behaviour for supervillains.

#56 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 21 August 2011 - 10:49 PM

Which is kind of my point - Blofeld has no real reason for making a move on Tracy. It's not like his feelings for her were a recurring subplot throughout the film, so stop acting like they were.

#57 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 21 August 2011 - 11:54 PM

Which is kind of my point - Blofeld has no real reason for making a move on Tracy.


How about 'because he's a randy, snobbish, narcissist, who's turned on by any woman (especially a countess) who flatters him?'

That's what the whole poem recital is about. Tracey's the poet of beguilement who sings to him, while the ships (helicopter gunships) creep across the dawn - to paraphrase the text.

#58 bribond

bribond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 104 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 01:48 AM

Bond definitely loved both Tracy and Vesper in different ways. But the films and the books are unique. In both the books and films of Casino Royale Vesper is a bit of an enigma and part of her is unattainable to Bond and that is part of why he falls for her. In the film Casino Royale there is a complete arc to the relationship. Bond thinks he has the whole thing with woman figured out. He uses women for pleasure, generally married women who have no intention of leaving their husbands. Vesper throws in a wrench in all of that in part because he cannot control her reactions because she has her own agenda. She loves him too and sacrifices herself for him in part to avoid having to confess her betrayal to him. Realize too, even though in the film Vesper is still alive when Bond discovers her betrayal, he never gets to confront her about it. The mess of emotions he faces (wanting to kill her and then desperate to save her) is very human.

The relationship in OHMSS is both for a more mature Bond and Tracy. Tracy has been beat up a bit by life and Bond grows to care for her but she holds no secrets from him. They both represent an opportunity for each other to move into a better life. It is as much about contentment with each other as physical passion, whereas in Casino Royale the two were more flush with emotion. Part of Bond's deep depression in the book You Only Live Twice is from his guilt over her death. Vesper chose her death. Tracy, due to her relationship with Bond, chose life but lost it due to circumstances beyond her control. For that reason Bond refuses to marry again. He does not want to open himself up but he also does not want to put an innocent woman in that position again due to her love for him.

#59 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 04:20 AM

In my view, there's a few things working against the "romance" in the film; one, Lazenby, for all his appeal, was not the ideal guy for the job when it comes to getting across the full range and depth of human emotions. Like any newcomer to the screen, he was awkward in this regard and, at least in my opinion, doesn't "sell" the romance as fully as a more seasoned performer might have.



Actually, I have to disagree with this assessment. One of the reasons why I thought Lazenby was right for this particular Bond movie was that he portrayed Bond as a human being, instead of a cool and distant superspy. And if I must be blunt, I was never that impressed by Connery's romantic roles during the 1960s, even in the non-Bond movies. The closest he came to acting like a human in love was in "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE". And he was still not as effective as Lazenby. At least to me. Fortunately for Connery, he got better at portraying a man in love during the 1970s and beyond.

#60 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 12:29 PM

In my view, there's a few things working against the "romance" in the film; one, Lazenby, for all his appeal, was not the ideal guy for the job when it comes to getting across the full range and depth of human emotions. Like any newcomer to the screen, he was awkward in this regard and, at least in my opinion, doesn't "sell" the romance as fully as a more seasoned performer might have.



Actually, I have to disagree with this assessment. One of the reasons why I thought Lazenby was right for this particular Bond movie was that he portrayed Bond as a human being, instead of a cool and distant superspy. And if I must be blunt, I was never that impressed by Connery's romantic roles during the 1960s, even in the non-Bond movies. The closest he came to acting like a human in love was in "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE". And he was still not as effective as Lazenby. At least to me. Fortunately for Connery, he got better at portraying a man in love during the 1970s and beyond.


I think what works against him is that his Bond films had him as the ultimate super-cool agent in his 30's (remember, the most recent public perception of Connery-Bond was in the comic strip sci-fi of YOLT), with the notable exception of FRWL where it is perfectly clear he has mixed emotions over Tania and is [censored]-scared of Red Grant. Had he had taken the decision to film OHMSS who knows? Hopefully he SHOULD have had the acting skills to carry the part off; hell, he kept telling most folk after c1964 that he was a proper classically trained actor and was really slumming it doing Bond!

Lazenby, on the other hand, didn't come with the super-cool baggage, was probably terrified every time he opened his mouth (he came without ANY training), and this allowed his Bond to appear more humanly vulnerable, and, I suggest, more likely to be emotionally effected and fall in love.

Of course, most of us regret Connery not having done OHMSS, but then Sean had the choice, and decided against it.